In Larsen v Runes Investments Pty Ltd [2026] NZHC 2586, the High Court confirmed that a homeowner can be liable in nuisance for failing to prevent a landslip causing damage to their neighbour.

The Court upheld the District Court’s judgment imposing a mandatory injunction requiring the land to be properly retained to prevent erosion and instability, alongside an order that the appellant pay $350,000 in damages.

Background to the proceeding

Ms Larsen and Runes Investments owned adjoining residential properties in Thames. In 2015, Runes Investments complained to Ms Larsen about overland water flowing from her property and causing erosion and land instability to its property. Despite multiple requests for action, including obtaining expert reports and providing a quote to build a retaining wall for the relatively modest sum of $4,000, the only step Ms Larsen took was to self-build a non-engineered stacked timber structure at the toe of the bank intended to address the overland waterflow. The local authority had also issued Ms Larsen a number of notices to fix, directing non-compliant work to be remedied.

When Cyclone Gabrielle struck in February 2023, a large area of land slipped from Ms Larsen’s property onto Runes Investments’ property, causing damage, rendering it unusable, and creating a potential threat for neighbours below.

Liability in private nuisance

The High Court’s judgment contains a useful summary of the legal principles for liability in private nuisance, in particular:

1. liability in private nuisance requires “any ongoing or recurrent activity or state of affairs that causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or their use or enjoyment of that land”;^[1]

2. an actionable nuisance may arise from interference with a natural right attached to land - for example, the right to support of land in its natural state;^[2]

3. liability of the person creating the nuisance is not strict. Rather, the duty to remove the nuisance depends on what is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances - if little effort is required, then the failure may be obvious; if significant works are required, it may be unreasonable and disproportionate to impose the remedy solely on that person; and^[3]

4. any loss caused by the nuisance is only recoverable if the kind of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable.^[4]

Application of legal principles

The High Court’s dismissal of the various arguments Ms Larsen raised in her appeal is a helpful example of those legal principles in action.

1. The Court rejected the argument that the overland discharge, driveway discharge, and a slumped area of land should have been considered separately. The Judge found that those problems were features of a single state of affairs caused by inadequate drainage and instability which resulted from the lack of retention on Ms Larsen’s property. This was a nuisance because it caused substantial and unreasonable interference with Runes Investments' use and enjoyment of its land. 

2. The Court disagreed with Ms Larsen's claim that Runes Investments’ various requests for action simply predicted a future risk of landslips or discharge but did not establish nuisance to Runes Investments’ land or put her on notice to take action. 

3. The Court found that known defects risking future damage can constitute a nuisance and did so in this case. Runes Investments’ expert reports built a picture constituting the nuisance.

4. The court disagreed with Ms Larsen's contention that she had taken a measured response to the nuisance with the information she had at the time, and in the context of difficult personal circumstances because Runes Investments had provided her with several expert reports over a period of years, identifying the nuisance, its risks, and proposing remedial action. Personal difficulties did not explain years of inaction or ignoring Runes Investments’ requests and her self-constructed stacked timber structure was inadequate given the $4,000 professional option proposed by Runes Investments.

Remedy: injunction and damages

The District Court imposed an injunction requiring Ms Larsen to retain her land and reinstate support to Runes Investments’ property. Ms Larsen argued on appeal that a formal injunction was unnecessary, and the Court should have simply directed her to undertake works.

The High Court agreed an injunction was appropriate. The weight of Ms Larsen’s concrete driveway and traffic across it risked underlying fill spilling onto Runes Investments’ property. The injunction was to ensure formal support to prevent that from occurring and abate the threat of material instability.

Ms Larsen also appealed the District Court’s award of $350,000 in damages, arguing that the landslip which caused damage to Runes Investments’ land was not a foreseeable consequence of any nuisance she had caused. The High Court disagreed. It held that not only was the risk of a slip a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the nuisance, but Ms Larsen had also been warned about the risk on multiple occasions by Runes Investments’ experts.

Our comment

With climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, landslips may become more common, leading to an increase in disputes between neighbouring landowners over resulting loss and damage.

The Court’s decision helps to clarify landowner liability resulting from failure to abate a nuisance, and is a useful reminder of what principles a Court will consider when analysing nuisance disputes.

If you would like to discuss the implications of the Court’s decision in this case, please contact one of our experts listed below.

Special thanks to Meredith Seeto and Tawhiwhi Watson for their assistance in preparing this article.